Loading...
09.28.22 HAB PacketCITY OF BOULDER HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: September 28, 2022 TIME: 6 PM LOCATION: Zoom Meeting – link posted day of meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL / 6:00 p.m. 2. AGENDA REVIEW 3. WELCOME a. New Director for Planning & Development Services – Brad Mueller 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. August 24, 2022 – See attached 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / 6:05 p.m. a. Open comment 6. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD / 6:10 p.m. a. ADU Discussion Continued (Information Item) o List of potential topics to recommend Council consider for a HAB decision in October – See attached 7. MATTERS FROM STAFF / 8:40 p.m. 8. DEBRIEF MEETING AND CALENDAR CHECK / 8:50 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT / 9:00 p.m. Informational Item: Updates and education; no action to be taken Feedback: Discussion of board processes and items of interest; may result in action Input: Discussion and comments to shape staff work on housing issues, projects and policies; no action taken Decision: Vote on board processes, work plan, agenda items, etc. Recommendation: Vote on the board’s input to city council For more information, please contact the HAB Secretary at 303.441.3097, or via email at bollert@bouldercolorado.gov. Board agendas are available online at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards- commissions/housing-advisory-board. Please note agenda item times are approximate. HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD    Summary Minutes: 08/24/2022 Virtual (Zoom)          BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:    Michael Leccese, Chair   Daniel Teodoru, Vice Chair   Philip Ogren   Julianne Ramsey   Terry Palmos      BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:    Juliette Boone       STAFF PRESENT:    Jay Sugnet   Tiffany Boller 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL / 6:00 p.m. 2. AGENDA REVIEW 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. June 22, 2022 – Teodoru motions to approve, Palmos seconds, 5-0 approve minutes 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / 6:05 p.m. • Open comment  Macon Cowles  Jan Burton  Jonathan Singer  Jerry Shapins  Kathleen McCormick 5. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD / 6:40 p.m. a. Letter to Council urging action on TVAP Phase II and the Planning Reserve (Decision) o Review and potentially finalize draft letter from the Chairs – o Sugnet – Sept 22nd will be Study Session with City Council regarding TVAP Phase II and the Planning Reserve (both Council priorities) o Palmos moves to submit letter to council, Teodoru seconds. 5-0 approved  Discussion around visiting local building projects to discuss suggestions for council around pedestrian centered communities.  Leccese suggests late September for bike tour of sites A. ADU Discussion Continued (Input) a. Teodoru – Would like council to focus on – flexibility, timing, and simplifying the process. Take away unnecessary restraints and expedite approvals. Occupancy should somehow focus on local workforce – somehow create a way to connect ADU renters and providers. b. Leccese – Draft recommendations prior to next meeting to discuss a. Remove saturation requirements – Leccese b. Eliminate parking requirements – Leccese c. Remove occupancy limits – Leccese d. Ask for separate review track, separate from regular permitting process – Palmos e. Propose preapproved ADU designs – Palmos f. How prefab/manufactured (fixed foundation) homes could provide options for ADUs – Ogren g. Leccese and Teodoru will work to draft recommendations prior to next meeting 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF / 7:15 p.m. – Jay Sugnet 1. Update on return to in-person board meetings 2. Oct 13 – City Council Study session regarding ADUs 3. Oct 27 – Council update on Affordable housing and middle income / ownership specifically 1. Down payment assistance program 2. Update to inclusionary housing program 7. DEBRIEF MEETING AND CALENDAR CHECK / 7:21 p.m. 1. Next meeting is September 28, 2022 2. Ogren – would like to create a resource list for information regarding ADUs 3. Leccese – would like to replace part of a future meeting with a listening session 8. ADJOURNMENT / 7:26 p.m. 1. Teodoru motions, Palmos seconds, pass 5-0 APPROVED BY            _________________________________    Board Chair            _________________________________    DATE    From:Kurt Nordback To:Housing Advisory Board Group Subject:Housing advocacy groups’ recommendations for ADU reform Date:Friday, September 16, 2022 9:20:21 AM External Sender Dear Housing Advisory Board, We, the undersigned, are members of organizations dedicated to addressing Boulder's housing crisis: Better Boulder, Boulder Is For People, and Boulder Housing Network. Like many problems, the housing crisis does not have a single solution. However, we firmly believe that there are many policy changes that can individually make small contributions to alleviating the crisis, and if combined, could significantly improve the availability and affordability of housing in Boulder. A couple of us testified at your August 28 meeting about ADUs, and Board members invited us to present our ideas about ADUs in writing before your next meeting. We have been meeting to discuss one such policy tool: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). We chose to tackle ADU policy first because, although it may not be the most impactful of potential tools, reform of Boulder's ADU rules is on the city staff work plan for this fall, and because we feel many of the potential reforms are relatively simple code changes. We have reached consensus on six changes that could be quick to implement, simple, and require no significant funding. We have also discussed longer-term, more challenging, or more costly changes, and we may be bringing some of those forward in the future. But for now, these are the quick-fix code and policy changes we recommend: 1. Eliminate saturation limits. Current rules limit the fraction of properties with ADUs within a given area. For instance, in the city's largest residential zone district, RL-1, only 20% of properties within a 300-foot radius are allowed to have ADUs. A saturation limit was put in place originally to alleviate fears of an overabundance of ADUs. The limit was raised as part of the 2019 ADU code revisions, but it remains an obstacle to creating more ADUs in some areas of town, particularly since nonconforming properties such as duplexes are also included in the calculation. Perhaps just as important, it is an opaque and confusing metric that may deter would-be ADU developers, and it slows the ADU permitting process. It's impractical for a property owner to determine on their own whether their property meets the limits. Only city staff have the data and tools to do the calculation, and it must be done by hand (the city's GIS software can't do it automatically). Last and perhaps least, this provision significantly complicates the ADU code in the Boulder Revised Code. 2. Eliminate parking requirements for an ADU, or triggered by ADU construction. The ADU rules currently require one off-street parking space for a market-rate ADU. Moreover, they require that in order to build a market-rate ADU on a parcel that does not have the required one off-street space for the primary house, two parking spaces (one for the house and one for the ADU) must be provided. The parking requirement is a significant impediment on constrained lots, or those with limited street access. It is also contrary to Boulder's efforts to reduce incentives for motor vehicles and to create a less car-dependent urban form. And private land that is valuable for environmental, social, and health purposes — for trees, gardens, recreation, gathering, and open space — should not be required to be paved to park vehicles. 3. Eliminate lot-size minimum for ADUs. Current rules do not allow an ADU on any lot smaller than 5,000 square feet. While such lots are fairly rare in Boulder, this restriction seems unnecessary and arbitrary. 4. Increase ADU size limits. The following table shows the current ADU size limits: Market-rate Affordable Attached 1/3 dwelling size or 1000 sq ft, whichever is less ½ dwelling size or 1000 sq ft, whichever is less Detached 550 sq ft 800 sq ft We recommend increasing the size limits so that the square footage of the ADU can be half the area of the principal structure, even for market rate ADUs.. This allows a property owner to create an ADU on one floor of a house without having to wall off a portion of that floor in order to meet the limitations noted above. We also suggest increasing the detached ADU size limits to 650 square feer (market-rate) and 900 square feet (affordable), to allow them to be more suitable for families. Alternatively or in addition, the size-limit exception process could be changed from one requiring a hearing at BOZA (Board of Zoning Adjustment) to a simpler administrative process. 5. Allow one attached and one detached, or two detached, ADUs per parcel. The existing rules do not explicitly limit a property to a single ADU, though some may argue that that is implied. Based on a suggestion from City Council, we recommend explicitly allowing one attached and one detached ADU, or two attached ADUs, per parcel. Many property owners are not able to or interested in providing an ADU. Allowing those who are able and interested to create a second ADU would help to meet our housing needs. 6. Allow ADU permitting before or at the same time as house permitting. Although not specified so in the city code, the administrative convention has been to only allow an ADU application for parcels where a primary house exists or construction permits have been issued. This results in an inefficient and unduly costly process when attempting to build a house and ADU at the same time. It requires an applicant to submit sequentially for the house and ADU permits, and given the protracted time period for issuance of the permits, it means that construction also happens sequentially. Therefore crews for excavation, foundation, framing, etc. do their work for the house, and then must return -- months later -- to do similar work for the ADU. With delayed permitting, rising costs, and supply-chain issues for materials and construction, the current system can lead to canceling plans for an ADU. It also means that an owner of any empty lot who wishes to build and perhaps live in an ADU first, before building the house, is not allowed to do so. This administrative restriction seems unnecessary and counterproductive to easing our housing crisis. Thank you for considering our suggestions, and thank you for your service to our community on HAB. Eric Budd Jan Burton Jake Brady Ed Byrne Chelsea Castellano Macon Cowles Rosie Fivian Lisa Wade Kathleen McCormick Kurt Nordback